IN SEARCH OF THE NORTH ISLAND

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 235, 5 October 1936, Page 8

IN SEARCH OF THE NORTH ISLAND

Confiscation of Land (Part 3-17). (Copyright). The fall of Orakau, which ' has already been alluded to and, in which batle, Rewi Maniapoto had the support of a band of warriors from the Urewera country, witnessed the termination of the war with the invading Pakeha hosts in the Waikato. The British forces were withdrawn leaving the Maori wounded to the quick with the injustice of the politically inspired invasion of their country and, as though to add insult to the greivous injury they had suffered, they were obliged to see vast areas of their land conliscated to the Crown which final act appeared to realise the suspicion that the Government simply used the troops "to drive the Maori into rebellion in order that they (the then Ministers of the Crown) might have an excuse to seize upon their land.’* It was not until 192 S that some of the evils perpetrated at tho conclusion of the Waikato war were softened by the findings of the Commission set up to investigate tho confiscated lands but even this measure of belated justice cannot hope to remove the simmering dissatisfaction among the Waikato tribes over the great wrong and suffering inflicted on them by a past administration whoso policy was characterised by a succession of blunders of the most inexcusable type. Tho Maori has not sought utu (payment or revenge) but lives in tho hope that a more enlightened Pakeha will one day remove every cause for the continuation of tho remaining shadows of those dark feelings engendered by the injustice of tho Waikato war and the confiscation of lands which followed. That this confiscation of land was no trivial affair nor one dictated by a desire to take only that which was immediately needed in the way of compensating those who had volunteered for service against tho Waikato tribes, may be gathered from tho fact that the total area originally confiscated was 1,202,172 acres. Sinco tho Maori had

nothing in the way of tangible assets but his land and the Pakeha no means of assessing boundaries, tho ruthlessness of the act of wholesale confiscation becomes apparent. Later 314,304 acres were returned leaving a balance of 557,808 acres as finally confiscated. This vast area of land -was taken from the rightful owners because they had been, in the eyes of the Government, guilty of rebellion in defending what was theirs. The war was not of their making—it was forced upon them by those who failed to appreciate the effect of the muddlement of the administration on the Maori who had seen the "rape of Waitara’ ’ and was convinced that it was the Government’s intention to repeat the Taranaki conflagration in the Waikato.

The report of the Commission on the Waikato confiscations reviewed the causes leading up to the King movement. These have already been referred to and call for no reiteration. The attempt to introduce civil government in the Waikato failed becauso of differences between the first magistrate appointed (Mr Fenton) and tho Native Secretary as to the proper policy to be pursued by tho Government in the district. A committee of the Houso of Representatives, appointed in 1860 to investigate the position, found that the withdrawal of tho Magistrate and the abandonment of the attempt to introduce institutions of Civil government disheartened a large and influential body of Natives including many influential chiefs who had associated themselves with Mr Fenton and were actively engaged on the side of the Government ot the day. “Thus ended," wrote Sir John Gorst, ‘‘tho flrst practical attempt to govern the Maoris. To extinguish Mr Fenton was no doubt a great triumph for tho Native Department, but has since turned out a rather costly ono for the British Empire. The abortive measures of the Government made tho revolt of tho Waikatos much more complete than if nothing had been done at all. As tho European Magistrate left the Waikato, Potatau went into it and was duly installed King at Ngaruawahia in April, 1858." When in June, 1861, in anticipation of a large meeting of Natives at Ngaruawahia, the Governor issued a proclamation charging the Natives of having violated tho Treaty of Waitangi by setting up a King and calling upon them for unconditional submission, the effect on the Nativo mind, after so much humbug, was such “. . . a distinct revelation of tho thoughts and purposes of the Pakeha and helped to decide that anxious question which was always in their thoughts, when the great war that was to deprive them of their lands, would begin." (Sir John Gorst). The Government of tho day was not unaware of the feelings its actions had been responsible for creating in the mind of the Maori and those feelings, it should be remembered, did not rise from any inherent hostility towards the Pakeha. Notwithstanding its policy of humbug the Government was influenced into believing that it could only settle the question by war. It failed to appreciate that the attitude of the Maori was definitely tho result, not of unwillingness on the part of the Natives to accept the civil institutions but of the vacillating policy of the Government itself. Tho disclosures made by Mr James Fulloon, Government interpreter, who was to meet an untimely end at the height of tho Hau Hau fanaticism, that the Waikato tribes planned to attack Auckland, a plan which was frustrated by Wiremu Tamaliana, tho King-maker, was accepted as evidence that the Maori was determined to oppose tho Government and the invasion of tho country was ordered. Immediately after the war the Governor issued several proclamations confiscating various areas of land to the Crown. On the question as to the general confiscation tho Commission expressed the following opinion, . The flrst question is -whether or not the circumstances were such as to justify us in saying that in good conscience and equity the Natives, although rebels,

ought not to havo suffered any confiscation of their land. It is true, certainly, that the Government did afford them some cxcuso for their resort to arms. For them the Government had become a gigantic landbroker, whose sole object, however disguised, was the acquisition of their territory, regardless of their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi. They knew that the first Taranaki war was an unjust and unholy war, and this view of it was completely established when the Waitara purchase was abandoned by the Government. Sir William Martin said that a deliberate review of the whole connection between tho two races forced him to believe that the Natives had not fallen short of their part in the original contract more than we had ours; that they had not, as a nation, sinned more against us than we, tho superior and protecting power, had against them. If, in the circumstances, the Natives had contented themselves with providing for their own defence when attacked, with providing also for the establishment of law and order in their midst, and for the regulation of sales of Native land, they might have been declared to be blameless. But they were not content to do that, and formed. a plan for the destruction of Auckland and the slaughter of its inhabitants In view of these facts .... we are not justified, we think, in saying that the tribes who took part in the Waikato war ought not to have suffered some confiscation of their lands as a penalty for the part they took in the rebellion." In its conclusions the Commission found that the confiscation was excessive and awarded a yearly payment of £3OOO to bo applied by a board for the benefit of the members of tho tribes whoso lands were confiscated. On a monetary basis it was argued that the value of the land confiscated, that is the actual balance of land in dispute, was £358,666, estimated at 10s per acre but the Commission refused to accept this basis and decided upon the award indicated. (To bo continued).